History, doctrine, culture, books

A Spectre Haunting Mormonism

In the David O. McKay era, a spectre was indeed haunting Mormonism — the spectre of Communism. And it wasn't just whispered about in the halls, it was shouted from the podium, particularly by Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, as recounted in "Confrontation with Communism," Chapter 12 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (all quotes are from Chapter 12 of the book). It was depicted as a conspiracy to undermine everything good about America and the Church. As we now know, it turned out that nationalism and ethnic strife eventually swamped political Communism. But no one knew that's how it was going to turn out. For most Americans and the vast majority of Mormons during the McKay years (1951-70), Communism was the avowed enemy of the West, immovably opposed to truth, justice, and the American way.

McKay's Own Views
McKay was ordained an Apostle in 1906, so he actually observed the Russian Revolution of 1917 as a General Authority. In 1936, he joined (as a counselor) in a First Presidency message denouncing Communism:

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support communism is treasonable to our free institutions ....

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.

McKay thought "the primary evil of Communism was its denial to the individual of free agency," a criticism he also applied to wartime Germany and Japan. But after the end of WWII, atheistic communism was the only remaining threat, so it became the focus of all the rhetoric. And it affected the Church directly: the LDS Czech mission was closed in the fifties after two LDS missionaries were arrested and held; the LDS missionaries in Hong Kong (threatened by Red China) were relocated to Hawaii; and the worldwide LDS missionary force shrunk dramatically as young Americans were drafted to fight the Communists in Korea. It was not hard to view Communism as doing literally doing Satan's work.

Ezra Taft Benson
In January 1953, Benson began an 8-year term as Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower cabinet. He had McKay's blessing to take a leave of absence from the day-to-day responsibilities of an Apostle. But Benson was permanently politicized by his stint in Washington, and his statements after returning to his religious duties in 1961 often contained a strong political component. Even more controversial was Benson's association (but never formal membership) with the John Birch Society (JBS), an extreme right-wing political group. For example, here are Benson's remarks from the October 1961 LDS General Conference:

Communism is fundamentallly socialism. ... No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction.

This took earlier LDS statements to a new level. But Benson wasn't flying solo: "McKay implicitly endorsed Benson's position [at a meeting in 1961], as he would do regularly in the future." Some senior LDS leaders objected to Benson's equating socialism to communism. Increasingly open disagreement between leaders contributed to "a growing rift within the Church." McKay's role in this is puzzling. He gave other LDS leaders wide leeway in voicing their own views. At times he supported and encouraged Benson; at other times he clearly opposed the John Birch Society and its methods, as in the following First Presidency statement:

We deplore the presumption of some politicians, especially officers, co-ordinators and members of the John Birch Society, who undertake to align the Church or its leadership with their partisan views.

When confronted by Benson, McKay backpedaled, and JBS Mormons who wrote letters to the First Presidency received a form letter over the signature of McKay's secretary assuring them that their membership in the Church was not jeopardized by their JBS membership. The letter noted that the Church was not opposed to the JBS, only to anyone or any organization using the Church to recruit its own membership or to imply Church sponsorship. But other senior leaders were disturbed by Benson's activities. Harold B. Lee is quoted as saying, "Elder Benson [due to his service in Washington] had lost his spiritual tone and would no longer accept counsel."

Riding Out the Storm
In September 1963, Benson attended a ceremonial JBS dinner in honor of Robert Welch, its founder. In a speech at the dinner, Benson delivered laudatory comments about Welch. When asked by reporters after the dinner whether he endorsed Welch's portrayal of Eisenhower as a Communist puppet of sorts, "Benson sidestepped the question [and] refused to defend Eisenhower." Less than a month later, McKay called Benson to preside over the European Mission. While there is no hint that the action was intended as punishment or exile, it was "widely seen as a rebuff to Benson's political activism." For his part, Benson graciously accepted the called and deflected any idea that he was unhappy with the assignment or unwilling to go.

Similar vacillation by McKay — opposing Benson's activities when meeting with his counselors Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner, but encouraging Benson's activities when meeting with Benson personally — continued for years, right up until McKay's passing in 1970. Under McKay's successors Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, Benson stopped his political activity. Understandably, some Mormons were anxious when Benson assumed the office of the President in 1985, but his earlier political views did not resurface in his public statements during his tenure as President of the Church from 1985 to 1994.

My Observations
The whole lengthy Communist episode was confusing to rank-and-file Mormons and frustrating for LDS leaders. It's a chapter in LDS history you won't read anywhere else, so if you want to get the full story instead of my quick summary you'll have to read the book. Several conclusions can be drawn from the detailed review of events recounted by Prince in this chapter. First, while Benson was the visible spokesman for LDS anti-Communist views, McKay shared that view to an extent not previously appreciated. McKay stopped short of endorsing the JBS, but apart from that he consistently supported Benson's views and activities right up until his final year.

Second, the Communist issue showed how much trouble "dissension among the Brethren" could cause if it became publicly observed and discussed. The obvious present policy of LDS leaders in maintaining a united front on all policy and doctrinal issues seems to be the "never again" lesson drawn from the division and controversy of the McKay years. That such division was allowed to persist under McKay was partly the result of his hands-off and deferential leadership style. It was also the result (at least in his later years) of his declining energy and focus, a natural and unavoidable development given life tenure. This last point raises the delicate issue of the impact of aging on the governing councils of the Church.

Finally, there's the issue of the extent to which Benson's rhetoric (supported behind the scenes by McKay) did shift the political views of Mormons, especially local leadership, permanently toward the right. While it's true that the country as a whole seems to have become more conservative since the Reagan years, Mormons have become almost uniformly conservative and Republican. Prince notes that "Mormonism's involvement in the 1960s with right-wing political extremism left a legacy that affects the church adversely to this day." More recently, "this imbalance became of sufficient concern that the First Presidency, in 1998, assigned one of the few Democratic General Authorities, Marlin K. Jensen, to give an interview to Salt Lake Tribune assuring readers that one may, indeed, simultaneously be a Democrat and a Mormon in good standing." Sounds like an attempt to swing the pendulum back, or at least prevent further migration.

Flash forward to 2006: the Democrat problem is back and the Church is again moving to the right. Much like Benson and McKay used Communism to push the LDS political position from the center to the right, it almost seems like conservatives in Mormon leadership are now using the gay marriage issue to move the Church from the right to the far right. Although I'm sure some think it's America that's moving left while the Church holds its ground. Like Einstein's trains, sometimes it's hard to tell who is moving.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great work, Dave. It seems to me that the gay marriage response from the Church has three aims:

1) Decry something that it sees as inherently vile.

2) Get in bed with the religious right, possibly in an effort to align ourselves more broadly with mainstream Protestantism (a trend seen in other actions as well).

3) Use the issue as an us/"the world" wedge.

I view #2 as naive at best. The religious right is a club we can never, ever join. I've used this metaphor a number of times because I simply can't think of anything better to explain it. They'll let us carry their water, but we can't be "one of them" until we drop our exclusive truth claims, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon. I doubt that will happen.

#3 doesn't make sense to me because most people don't support gay marriage and most people stigmatize homosexuals and define them as a definite "them". Who said identity politics had to make sense, right?

What evidence do you have that SSM is a defining left-right policy issue? Or even a Dem-Rep policy issue? Read the political platforms-- neither even mentions SSM. Look at all the state-wide votes on SSM. Every public referendum that has been put to a popular vote has been decisively decided in the favor of the traditional definition of marriage (1 man & 1 woman)-- even in predominantly democratic states. D-Train points out that most Americans do not want SSM so how does SSM become a defining policy issue of left-right politics unless in your heart of hearts you want it to be?

I'll grant that if one polled the national political leadership one would probably find statistical evidence indicating a policy preference between Democrats and Republicans but that difference could be attributable to any number of motives. There are left and right arguments to be made for and against SSM. I personally know just as many Republicans who could care less about SSM (based on libertarian arguements) as I know Democrats who oppose it (based on government rights of oversight).

I think your angst springs from the fact that your own politics tend to swing left/Democrat and you support SSM. You conclude, therefore, that admonitions by Church leadership to oppose SSM are implicit admonitions to support right/Republican politics. I don't think such a leap is supportable or rational.

I believe that there are those in the church who are basically social liberals EXCEPT for the issue of abortion. Recognition of homosexual marriage is *almost* (but not quite) of the same intensity of feeling. If the Republican Party OR the Democratic Party changed their position on those two issues, Utah would, almost instantly (within a year) become much more balanced. If BOTH parties changed their positions (e.g., if they changed sides), look for Utah to suddenly become a Democratic, Blue state! The feeling of individuals is much more balanced than the polsters think. I'd really like them to ask the question: "If abortion and homosexual marriage were not issues, would your personal feelings lean more toward Republican views, or Democratic views?"

Paul, you're making incorrect inferences regarding my policy preferences (see here), but I'm not going to make it a "here are Dave's political views" thread.

My closing paragraph was really just an attempt to make the Communism isse (which seems like ancient history to some readers -- remember the Berlin Wall fell in 1989!) more relevant to today's LDS political issues.

It's worth noting that on Communism, there was only one visible strong advocate (Benson) and one behind the scenes advocate (McKay, whose anti-Communist vigor was unappreciated until recently). On SSM, I think the Big 15 are unanimously opposed and willing to involve the Church politically to further that opposition. I think a lesson that can be drawn from the Communism episode is that dragging the Church into politics will create divisions within the Church and even within leadership. I'm not really opposed to LDS views on SSM, but I do think getting the Church involved in politics is a big mistake.

I imagine that there are some very flustered folks in the leadership due to the divisions that do arise over political issues. I was raised to see the church as a unifying force, even in politics...you might guess what my parents politics were/are.

The concept if god's truth and inspired leadership has always rubbed roughly against separation of church and political power/influence. It's actually quite amazing that we've come this far and no doubt due largely to the American ideal of secular government.

Dave,
I have heard at least one talk directly from the pulpit by DOM decrying communism as a plan of the devil on the LDS voices podcast. I think it was quite obvious what his stand was. I also have a hard time believing that the rest of the brethren were pro-communism. The John Birch Society thing and its divisiveness was the threatening part. You state it was not hard to see communism as Satan's plan. I guess I just don't see any evidence for seeing it otherwise. Yes, it seems distant now but the cold war threatened the earth for over forty years.

I don't want Mormons to find a place in America. I don't want them comfortably settled in any of the political parties. The moment they find a place to fit in, they will become Americans first, and Mormons second. And perhaps they will simply become Americans and nothing more.

Mormons must remain in exile if they are to remain God's people.

This is why political conservativism currently presents the most damaging threat to our religion.

Doc, I probably didn't note it in my post, but it is made clear in the chapter that all LDS leaders opposed Communism, it was just a question of how that opposition should be exercised and what role (if any) the Church should play.

Benson worked hard, over many years, to get McKay and the Church to publicly endorse the Birch Society. Thorpe B. Isaacson was the only other leader supporting that effort; all others were opposed, with several, such as Hugh B. Brown, having a visceral dislike for the Birch Society.

The John Birch Society has always been considered to be part of the populist lunatic right, by "movement" conservatives and neo conservatives, from William Buckley to Irving Kristol. All are and were staunch anti-communists.

Given the Communist denial of religious liberty it is hard to see how any member of the Church could be pro-communist in its twentieth century formulation. Indeed the leading Democrats of that era from Truman to Johnson were all anti-communist as well. Socialism of course is another story. By one definition of the term, the Church is socialist from first to last - the role and extent of coercion is the dividing principle that typically distinguishes religious socialism from secular socialism.

There's a lot of room for disagreement within the umbrella of anti-communism. I think this quote in the post captures the problem in a nutshell.

"...No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction."

Anything left of the far right could be labeled as being in the direction of communism or socialism. So if John Birchers call something that people could reasonably view as good--say, water fluoridation--part of a communist/socialist plot, and Elder Benson lends his support to the JBS, then someone might reason that to support water fluoridation is to reject the Brethren.

Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere that Saints in other countries where socialism was accepted were put in a difficult position because they might genuinely like their country's socialist party/policies.

I think that within the Church it was not so much a question of whether communism was good or bad, but a question of emphasis, priorities, and perceptions.

The Dialogue article I mentioned above is in the issue available here. (27:2)

It's out of print, but Brigham Young University: A House of Faith covers the turbulence over communism on the BYU campus. Things like Wilkenson initiating a student spy ring to see what professors were saying about communism, denying it, then admitting it, (then) Elder Benson taking a personal interest in who was teaching economics, and (then) Pres. Oaks' attempts to fend off the right wing (there's a tough spot to be in). Oh yes, and Cleon Skousen had to be told to quit promoting his anti-communism organization in classes. I think most of this happened in the 70's after Pres. McKay died.

1) Communism was a real, expansionist threat to freedom, and freedom remains a new and fragile institution. One can argue about the effectiveness of Benson's methods, but his heart was in the right place. In the end, communism collapsed (Thank G-d softly) when it's expansion stalled, as is the case with all expansionist empires. The bipartisian containment policy worked!

2) I don't get the jump from anti-communism to gay bashing. One was a freedom movement, the other an anti-freedom one. I long for the day when America is truly the home of the free (decriminalize private use of recreational drugs, zone prostitution, total free speech to advertize booze, tabaco, etc.) G-d bless the Dutch for they shall lead the west to the promised land!

I'll add that communists called themselves socialists and many European democratic socialists did form alliances with communists. I'm sure that's why Benson lumped them together, and in that context, his view is quite defendable. A true democratic socialist would reject communists as evil, the Late French Pres Mitterand being instrumental in the collapse of communism is a prime example.

My beef with democratic socialism is it's just another attempt at tyranny, albeit by a majority. But I don't feel it's inherently evil. Communism is evil.

I personally heard some of Elder Benson's anti-communist statements. Back then, his methodologies galled my dad, who understood oppression, having grown up in Nazi Germany. He hated communism, but couldn't go along with Elder Benson's vociferous methods.

I still remember the day Pres. Kimball died. I was at my parents' house, and we saw Pres. Benson on a news flash. He seemed utterly ebullient. Dad said, "Well, he always wanted to be in charge, and now you can see how happy he is that he got it." But a few days later when the new First Presidency held a news conference, the new prophet was a different man. I was amazed to see the transformation. He never did return to his old 'bulldog' nature after that.

Elder Scott has spoken publicly of how open the Brethren are in council meeting discussions. I think, in quoting Elder Maxwell, he used the term, "with our gloves off." I do think they learned from the days of public disagreements to keep those disagreements inside the council room. You might find it interesting to study about some of the same public lack of unity among the Brethren back in the time when the formation of the U.N. was being debated.

It is an interesting idea to view the anti-communist views of LDS leaders as a situation that ultimately pushed the LDS Church membership largely towards the right/conservative side of U.S. politics. I hadn't quite pictured that before. At the same time, I don't regret that President McKay or ETB were opposed to communism. The USSR's special brand of totalitarianism was indeed malefic and I don't think it was merely a spectre "haunting Mormonism" but rather it was haunting the entire world.

I don't think the Church moved to the right so much, rather the Democrats moved sharply to the left ~1972, making it hard to be a morally conservative Democrat any more. That transition practically defines what it means to be neo-conservative. The ironic thing is that by doing the Democrats essentially created a permanent Republican majority, for both good and evil.

I would say rather they *were* indistinguishable, then Democratic coalition split, the neo-conservatives aligned with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, and the rump of the Democratic party produced the weak, vacilliating and impotent foreign policy of Jimmy Carter. I can't say much for Clinton's foreign policy either, with the exception of NAFTA - he demonstrated some real principle there.

We need to wait a few years to get a proper perspective on Bush's foreign policy, though it clearly has weaknesses - I suspect Reagan, Truman, Eisenhower, or JFK could do a better job, but not many of the others until we get back to Theodore Roosevelt.

Perhaps. JFK's rhethoric however, was thoroughly Wilsonian, not realist:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

I am not a big fan of neo-conservative foreign policy - or anybody who acts as if we have unlimited resources, or worse that we should use war to pursue any moral aim short of matters of life and death.

As far as Carter is concerned, I have plenty of reason to believe his foreign policy was corrupt to the core, notably the nature of the private diplomacy he has been conducting decades later. In his own time though, he certainly did little of substance to challenge the image of utter fecklessness. Cutting of grain sales? The Moral Equivalent of War (MEOW)?

A President needs to talk tough, based on unquestionable principles, and be willing to back up that talk with serious action if necessary. I don't recall Carter doing anything more effective than pulling us out of the Moscow Olympics. The rhetoric alone of Ronald Reagan (and Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II) made a world of difference. By any normal standard, the Soviet Union *was* an evil empire.

Oh, I don't disagree with you Mark in general. The Presidency is about perception. In a democracy, a true leader must be a salesman, and Carter failed miserably in this respect. I'm just pointing out that, in action, he was actually tougher on the USSR than Reagan was.

Though JFK used Wilsonian rhetoric, his actual foreign policy followed more of a realist paradigm.

But I do definitely agree that the neoconservatives act as if the USA had the equivalent power to God almighty on the world stage. My biggest beef with Iraq has always been that we were too weak to pull it off. I thought that when we invaded, and I think that the events of the past few years have just proved my point.

On a related note, I think that the danger posed to the USA by the USSR throughout the Cold War simply illustrates just how much of a non-threat terrorists are to us today.

Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of MormonismGivens and Grow's warts-and-all biography of this energetic missionary, author, and apostle whose LDS career spanned Joseph Smith's life, the emigration to Utah, and Brigham Young's early leadership of the Church in Utah. My Review